Talk:Seat belt laws in the United States

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Actual Fines

The fines listed on the article are rather dishonest and inaccurate regardless of what the auto insurance agency funded orginization used as the reference says.... As almost every state imposes numerous additional feels due to whatever pet project fund (head injury fund, scrape the person offZevFarkas (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC) the pavement fund, sept 11 security fees etc..) they have going at the moment. in most cases the fines can be many many many multiples of what is actually listed. if anyone wants to do a little project and research your particular states law and then add the "REAL-ACTUAL" fine amount - link to the law and update this page that would be great. Id do them all but then this would be a fulltime job. thanks ;) -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Seatbelt" or "seat belt"

A consensus should be reached on whether to use "seatbelt" or "seat belt." The title of the article uses the two-word version, but most of the article uses "seatbelt." —Super Rad! (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24toonenata (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC) potato, potahto[reply]

Actual First Offense in Orange County, California = $436.00 for 27360.5(a) violation

Yes, you read that right. $436.00 for first offense. Only $100.00 of this is the actual fine. The rest is fees. And in my case, my teenage son removed his seatbelt without my knowing and since he is under 16, I am also getting charged a point and by statute the penalty cannot be waived even by the Judge. It must either be paid or I must prevail in trial. For Orange County, California see Uniform Bail Amounts link for detailing of penalties and fees. http://www.occourts.org/directory/criminal/jcbailschedule.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and Contradictory

this article actually helped me complete a research paper

There are multiple areas of this article which are confusing, seemingly contradictory or both.

In the introductory section, the final sentences--"In most states in the US To sit in the passenger seat children must be 4'5 or 11 years old. Those are the recommendations." These are the recommendations or this is the law? This is unclear and provides little usable information.

In the Laws by State chart, the section Who is Covered is very confusing. Who is covered by the law? The entry for California, for instance reads "Age 16+ in all seats" which would lead the reader to believe that only passengers 16 or older are required to wear seat belts. This is certainly not the case.

There is a seeming contradiction in the Secondary enforcement section: "In most states the seat belt law was originally a secondary offense; in many it was later changed to a primary offense: California was the first state to do this, in 1993. Of the 30 with primary seat belt laws, all but 8, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas, originally had only secondary enforcement laws." This section seems to state that California was the first to change its law to primary enforcement, then follows by saying 8 states, including NY--the first state to pass seat belt legislation--have always had a primary enforcement law. This is contradictory at worst; confusing at best.

The Damages reduction section is also confusing/contradictory. It seems to say that a person not wearing a seat belt may be liable for higher damages then goes on to discuss states which have taken action not to allow damages to be reduced for not wearing a seat belt. Even if there is not an error in this section, it should definitely be reworked for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.251.63 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article states the existence of a federal law without citing it

The first paragraph which states there is a federal law needs to cite it! Where can I find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onawaiowa (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I found a cite: "Uniform Vehicle Code section 12-412 deals with seat belts and shoulder harnesses, and requires that front seating positions in new passenger cars be equipped with lap type safety belts after January 1, 1965, and a combination of lap belts and shoulder harnesses after January 1, 1968." UVC §§ 12-412

§ 12-412-Seat belts and shoulder harnesses (a) Every passenger car manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1965, shall be equipped with at least two lap-type safety belt assemblies for use in the front seating positions. (b) Every passenger car manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1968, shall be equipped with a lap-type safety belt assembly for each permanent passenger seating position. This requirement shall not apply to police vehicles. (c) Every passenger car manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1968, shall be equipped with at least two shoulder harness-type safety belt assemblies for use in the front seating positions. (d) The commissioner shall except specified types of motor vehicles or seating positions within any motor vehicle from the requirements imposed by subsections (a) to (c) when compliance would be impractical. (e) No person shall distribute, have for sale, offer for sale or sell any safety belt or shoulder harness for use in motor vehicles unless it meets current minimum standards and specifications (approved by the commissioner) (of the United States Department of Transportation.

Benefac (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map badly out of sync with the text

In several cases; map coloring for MO, KS, and Utah is secondary in some cases, primary in others while the text is Secondary. Map coloring for Virgina is secondary while the text there states Secondary Adults / Primary Children. These are need to be brought into sync. Jon (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Originally Using Primary Enforcement?

I question the fact that North Carolina originally used primary enforcement when it passed its first law on October 1, 1985. According to the "Safety belt and child restraint laws, June 2013" webpage, North Carolina did not use primary enforcement until December 1, 2006. Could it be that it actually switched to secondary enforcement for a while and then reverted to primary enforcement? And if so, when did it start using secondary enforcement? Of course, the December 1, 2006 date for starting primary enforcement could be wrong, but I strongly think that it is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.206.241 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information for Hawaii Seat Belt Law

It is listed that passengers 18+ are not required by law to wear a seat belt in the back seat. In May of 2013 Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed a law that makes wearing seat belts mandatory in Hawaii for front and back seat occupants of a vehicle.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2013/05/20/new-hawaii-law-requires-everyone-to.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.41.108 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Cimmino

I can find no information to validate the claim that this person wrote the nation's first seat belt ticket. The website of the Westchester County Department of Public Safety appears down, but a check of archive.org for that URL immediately prior to the information being added does not corroborate the claim, so I removed the reference and marked it as citation needed. jfoldmei (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Should we remove this claim? No citation has been found since it was posted in September 2017 by a school in Orange County with a block for 3 years. Pianostar9 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the claim. If someone does find it with a reliable source, we can re-insert it to the article. Pianostar9 (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary and secondary enforcement

In the "Primary and secondary enforcement" of the article, we have the sentence "Of the 30 with primary seat belt laws, all but 8, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon, originally had only secondary enforcement laws."

There are only seven states in the list. Anyone know what the eighth state is? Or perhaps the "8" is an error?ZevFarkas (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]